On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 02:10:33PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:32:03PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (16/01/14 21:24), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >While looking at another issue I realized that we used a wrong
> >formatting conversion for UID/GID values - %d. For very large values,
> >there were sometimes overflows (-1) in the DEBUG logs. The attached
> Acctualy, it is not an overflow, only negative number war printed in
> debug message.
true.
>
> >patch converts the format specifier to PRIu32 as the value we print is
> >uint32_t.
> >
> >I'm fine with pushing this patch atop Nikolai's patches so that we
don't
> >make him rebase the large patchset again.
>
> You will need to write almost new patch :-)
> It would not be possible to rebase it easily.
>
> Is there any blocker for Nikolai's patches?
No, I will test them again (I suspect there would be another rebase
needed, we pushed some urgent fixes in the meantime) and push them to
master only.
Actually I asked Nikolai to rebase his patches once more, so there's no
reason to hold off this patch.
Pushed to master.